Provincial Government of Aurora vs. Marco

The constitutional prohibition on midnight appointments under Article VII, Section 15 applies only to presidential appointments and does not extend to appointments made by local chief executives; however, the Civil Service Commission, as the central personnel agency of the Government, may promulgate rules and regulations governing appointments by outgoing local elective officials, and appointments made in conformity with such rules are valid.

The Provincial Government of Aurora, through outgoing Governor Ramoncita P. Ong, appointed Hilario M. Marco to the position of Cooperative Development Specialist II five days before the end of her term. Local government unit appointments are governed by Civil Service Commission rules requiring certification of availability of funds and, for appointments issued by outgoing elective officials near election periods, compliance with CSC resolutions regulating such appointments. The constitutional prohibition on midnight appointments found in Article VII, Section 15 of the 1987 Constitution expressly refers only to the President or Acting President.

On June 25, 2004, Governor Ramoncita P. Ong of the Provincial Government of Aurora permanently appointed Hilario M. Marco as Cooperative Development Specialist II, five days before the end of her term as governor. Marco's appointment, together with 25 other appointments issued by Governor Ong, was submitted to the Civil Service Commission Field Office-Aurora on June 28, 2004. Annexed to Marco's appointment papers was a certification from Provincial Budget Officer Norma R. Clemente and Provincial Accountant Wilfredo C. Saturno stating that funds from the Province's 2004 Annual Budget were available to cover the position.

On June 30, 2004, newly elected Governor Bellaflor Angara-Castillo assumed office. The following day, she convened an executive meeting with all department heads of the Province, during which Provincial Budget Officer Clemente allegedly manifested that the Province had no funds available to pay for the salaries of Governor Ong's 26 appointees. Clemente subsequently issued a letter recalling the previously issued certification of availability of funds, stating that the recall was made "[i]n view of the result of the dialogue of the concerned offices regarding the financial status of the Provincial Government of Aurora." The letter was submitted to the Province's Human Resource Management Office and then forwarded to the Field Office.

Due to the recall of the certification, the Field Office disapproved Marco's appointment in a letter dated July 5, 2004. The Province, through Human Resource Management Officer Liwayway G. Victorio, served Marco a copy of the disapproval, advising him to refrain from reporting for work beginning July 8, 2004, the day he received notice. Marco sought reconsideration before the CSC Regional Office No. IV, which denied the motion on April 6, 2005, finding that the lack of funds was established during the meeting of the department heads with the new governor. Marco then appealed to the Civil Service Commission on May 17, 2005. The Province received notice of the appeal but failed to file its comment within the ten-day period required by Section 73 of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service.

On April 14, 2008, the Civil Service Commission granted Marco's appeal and set aside the Regional Office's decision, ruling that the appointment was valid because it was accompanied by a certification of availability of funds and that the Province had failed to submit documentary evidence to support its claim of insufficiency of funds. The CSC also found the withdrawal of the certification unfair to Marco, who had applied in good faith, passed the Personnel Selection Board screening on February 12 and 13, 2004, and was appointed on June 25, 2004. The CSC ordered the Regional Office to investigate whether the Provincial Budget Officer and Provincial Accountant were administratively liable for issuing and then withdrawing the certification. The Province received a copy of the April 14, 2008 Resolution on May 21, 2008, giving it until June 5, 2008 to file a motion for reconsideration. The Province did not do so; instead, on July 22, 2008, it filed a Petition for Relief on the ground of extrinsic fraud, which the CSC denied outright on November 4, 2008, for lack of legal personality and because the remedy was not available under civil service rules. The Province's subsequent Motion for Reconsideration was denied on September 8, 2009, the CSC ruling that the April 14, 2008 Resolution had become final and executory. Marco then requested implementation of the Resolution, which the CSC granted on July 6, 2010, ordering the Province to reinstate him and pay back salaries. The Province's Motion for Reconsideration with Motion to Quash Execution was denied on January 24, 2011, the CSC clarifying that the reversal of the disapproval necessarily meant Marco's appointment was in order and should be approved. The Province then elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals via a Petition for Review under Rule 43, where it raised for the first time the argument that Marco was a midnight appointee. The Court of Appeals denied the petition on March 2, 2012, and the Province's motion for reconsideration was denied on June 13, 2012.

• Midnight Appointment: Petitioner maintained that Marco's appointment was void because Governor Ong appointed him five days before the end of her term, in violation of CSC Resolution No. 030918, paragraph 2.1, which disapproves appointments issued by elective appointing officials after elections up to June 30 unless the appointee is fully qualified and underwent regular screening before the election ban.
• Insufficient Screening: Petitioner argued that Marco failed to present convincing evidence that he underwent a regular screening process, contending that the Personnel Selection Board minutes showed 201 applicants allegedly screened within two days, a period too short for careful deliberation.
• Supervening Event (Nazareno): Petitioner asserted that the promulgation of Nazareno, et al. vs. City of Dumaguete was a supervening event warranting reversal of the final and executory April 14, 2008 Resolution, as Governor Ong's appointments were analogous to the mass appointments voided in that case under CSC Resolution No. 010988.
• Lack of Funds: Petitioner insisted that Marco's appointment was void for lack of funds to pay for the position, and that the CSC's order to uphold the appointment despite the lack of funds interfered with the Province's prerogative to draw up its own budget and spend its revenues as it deemed fit.
• Varying Terms of Judgment: Petitioner claimed that the July 6, 2010 Resolution, which ordered Marco's reinstatement and payment of back salaries, varied the terms of the April 14, 2008 Resolution, whose dispositive portion merely directed the Field Office to reflect the decision in Marco's appointment papers and service record.

• Finality of Judgment: Respondent maintained that the CSC's April 14, 2008 Resolution had long become final and executory and could no longer be disturbed, as the Province failed to file a motion for reconsideration within the reglementary period.
• Belated Raising of Midnight Appointment: Respondent pointed out that the Province belatedly raised the midnight appointment claim only before the Court of Appeals and never before the Civil Service Commission, which should be deemed an implicit recognition that he was not a midnight appointee.
• Qualified Appointee: Respondent asserted that he was fully qualified for the position and had undergone the selection process required by Resolution No. 030918, making his appointment an exception to the prohibition on midnight appointments.
• No Interference with Appointing Power: Respondent argued that the CSC merely upheld the validity of an existing appointment and did not substitute its own appointee for the one chosen by the appointing authority.
• Nazareno Inapplicable: Respondent contended that Nazareno did not apply because it was decided under CSC Resolution No. 010988, which had been superseded by Resolution No. 030918, and because Nazareno had been promulgated even before his appointment, making it not a supervening event capable of setting aside a final and executory resolution.

• Immutability of Final Judgment: Whether the CSC's July 6, 2010 Resolution ordering implementation of the April 14, 2008 Resolution was void for varying the terms of the April 14, 2008 Resolution.
• Sufficiency of Funds: Whether the withdrawal of the certification of sufficiency of funds voided Marco's appointment.
• Midnight Appointment: Whether Marco's appointment was void on the ground that he was a midnight appointee.

• Immutability of Final Judgment: No. The CSC did not vary the terms of the April 14, 2008 Resolution; the order of reinstatement and payment of back salaries was the necessary consequence of reversing the disapproval of a valid appointment that had taken effect immediately upon issuance.
• Sufficiency of Funds: No. The withdrawal of the certification did not void the appointment, as the initial certification satisfied the requirement under CSC Memorandum Circular No. 40-98, and none of the grounds for disapproval under the Omnibus Rules existed.
• Midnight Appointment: No. The constitutional prohibition on midnight appointments applies only to presidential appointments; Marco's appointment complied with CSC Resolution No. 030918 because he was fully qualified and had undergone regular screening before the election ban.

• Immutability of Final Judgment: The Province received the CSC's April 14, 2008 Resolution on May 21, 2008, giving it until June 5, 2008 to file a motion for reconsideration. No motion was filed, and the Resolution became final and executory on June 6, 2008. The remedy of petition for relief is not available under the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, and even assuming it were available, the Province failed to show fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence. The Province was not prevented from fully and fairly presenting its defense; it simply failed to act. Under the doctrine of immutability of final judgments, a final and executory judgment is removed from the power and jurisdiction of the court which rendered it to further alter or amend it. The Province also erred in filing an appeal before the Court of Appeals from an order of execution, as no appeal may be taken from such an order; the proper remedy was a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. As to the claim that the July 6, 2010 Resolution varied the terms of the April 14, 2008 Resolution, under CSC Memorandum Circular No. 40-98, an appointment takes effect immediately upon issuance, and the appointee is entitled to salaries even before CSC approval. Because Marco's appointment was initially disapproved but he seasonably filed a motion for reconsideration, the appointment remained effective during its pendency. When the CSC granted the reconsideration and set aside the disapproval, reinstatement was the necessary consequence. The CSC correctly ordered reinstatement and back salaries.

• Sufficiency of Funds: Rule V, Section 1(e)(ii) of CSC Memorandum Circular No. 40-98 requires that appointments in local government units be accompanied by a certification from the Municipal/City/Provincial Accountant or Budget Officer that funds are available. Marco's appointment was accompanied by such a certification from the Provincial Budget Officer and Provincial Accountant, stating that funds were available under the 2004 Annual Budget. The subsequent withdrawal of the certification did not affect the appointment's validity because none of the grounds for disapproval under Rule V, Section 7 of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Civil Service Law existed. The appointment remained effective, and the local government unit remained liable for the appointee's salaries. Furthermore, if the initial certification was proven false, it would constitute intentional misrepresentation of a material fact concerning a civil service matter, an offense punishable under Section 67 of the Civil Service Law. The CSC therefore correctly ordered administrative proceedings against the Provincial Budget Officer and Provincial Accountant.

• Midnight Appointment: The constitutional prohibition on midnight appointments under Article VII, Section 15 of the 1987 Constitution applies only to presidential appointments. In De Rama vs. Court of Appeals, the Court held that there is no law prohibiting local elective officials from making appointments during the last days of their tenure. Nonetheless, the CSC, as the central personnel agency of the Government, may establish rules and regulations to promote efficiency and professionalism in the civil service. CSC Resolution No. 030918, which was effective at the time Governor Ong issued the disputed appointments, provides that all appointments issued by elective appointing officials after elections up to June 30 shall be disapproved, except if the appointee is fully qualified and had undergone regular screening processes before the election ban. The CSC and the Court of Appeals both found that Marco was fully qualified and had passed the Personnel Selection Board screening on February 12 and 13, 2004, well before the election ban. Absent grave abuse of discretion, the Court would not disturb these factual findings, especially given the CSC's specialized knowledge and expertise in civil service law. Nazareno was inapplicable because it was decided under CSC Resolution No. 010988, which had been superseded by Resolution No. 030918. Unlike Resolution No. 010988, Resolution No. 030918 does not prohibit appointments that are large in number, and 26 appointments could hardly be classified as "mass appointments" compared to the 89 invalidated in Nazareno.

• Doctrine of Immutability of Final Judgments — A final and executory judgment is removed from the power and jurisdiction of the court which rendered it to further alter or amend it, much less revoke it. The judgment remains immutable even if later discovered to be erroneous. The doctrine is grounded on public policy and sound practice: judgments must become final at some definite date fixed by law, lest endless litigation result. The doctrine applies to decisions of the Civil Service Commission, which become final and executory if no motion for reconsideration is filed within the 15-day reglementary period under Rule VI, Section 80 of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service.

• Prohibition on Midnight Appointments — Presidential Only — The constitutional prohibition on midnight appointments under Article VII, Section 15 applies only to presidential appointments and does not extend to appointments made by local chief executives. There is no law that prohibits local elective officials from making appointments during the last days of their tenure. However, the Civil Service Commission, pursuant to its constitutional mandate as the central personnel agency of the Government, may promulgate rules and regulations prohibiting or regulating appointments by outgoing local elective officials.

• Effectivity of Appointments Pending Appeal — Under CSC Memorandum Circular No. 40-98, Rule VI, Section 3, an appointment takes effect immediately upon issuance by the appointing authority. Once the appointee assumes the duties of the position, the appointee is entitled to receive salaries even before CSC approval. If the appointment is initially disapproved but a motion for reconsideration or appeal is seasonably filed, the appointment remains effective until finally disapproved. The disapproval becomes final only after affirmed by the Commission.

• "The prohibition on midnight appointments only applies to presidential appointments. It does not apply to appointments made by local chief executives." — This is the opening statement of the decision and articulates the core constitutional distinction that governs the entire case.

• "A final and definitive judgment can no longer be changed, revised, amended or reversed." — This passage, quoted from Obiasca vs. Basallote, states the doctrine of immutability of final judgments as applied to Civil Service Commission decisions, explaining why the April 14, 2008 Resolution could no longer be disturbed.

• "Although it conceded that no law prohibits local elective officials from making appointments during the last days of their tenure, this court in Nazareno upheld Civil Service Commission Resolution No. 010988, which prohibited local elective officials from making appointments immediately before and after elections." — This passage delineates the boundary between the constitutional prohibition (presidential only) and the CSC's rule-making authority to regulate local chief executive appointments.

• De Rama vs. Court of Appeals, 405 Phil. 531 (2001) — Controlling precedent establishing that the constitutional prohibition on midnight appointments applies only to presidential appointments and does not extend to local chief executives. Followed in this case to hold that Governor Ong's appointment of Marco was not constitutionally prohibited.

• Nazareno, et al. vs. City of Dumaguete, 617 Phil. 795 (2009) — Distinguished. Nazareno voided 89 mass appointments made by a city mayor under CSC Resolution No. 010988. The Court held Nazareno inapplicable because the appointments in this case were governed by CSC Resolution No. 030918, which had superseded Resolution No. 010988 and did not prohibit appointments based on number alone.

• Mendiola vs. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. 100671, April 7, 1993, 221 SCRA 295 — Followed for the proposition that a CSC resolution becomes final and executory when no motion for reconsideration is filed within the 15-day reglementary period, after which the CSC may no longer reverse it.

• Obiasca vs. Basallote, 626 Phil. 775 (2010) — Followed for the doctrine that failure to file a motion for reconsideration renders the CSC's decision final and executory, immutable, and no longer amendable or modifiable.

• Aytona vs. Castillo, G.R. No. L-19313, January 19, 1962, 4 SCRA 1 — Cited for the rationale behind the prohibition on midnight appointments: an outgoing President is duty bound to prepare for the orderly transfer of authority and should not do acts that would embarrass or obstruct the policies of the successor.

• Article VII, Section 15, 1987 Constitution — Prohibits the President or Acting President from making appointments two months immediately before the next presidential elections and up to the end of the term, except temporary appointments to executive positions when continued vacancies will prejudice public service or endanger public safety. Held applicable only to presidential appointments, not to those made by local chief executives.

• Article IX-B, Section 3, 1987 Constitution — Mandates the Civil Service Commission, as the central personnel agency of the Government, to establish a career service and adopt measures to promote efficiency, integrity, responsiveness, progressiveness, and courtesy in the civil service. Served as constitutional basis for the CSC's authority to promulgate rules regulating appointments by outgoing local elective officials.

• CSC Resolution No. 030918 (August 28, 2003) — Provides that all appointments issued by elective appointing officials after elections up to June 30 shall be disapproved, except if the appointee is fully qualified and had undergone regular screening processes before the election ban. Applied to uphold Marco's appointment because he was fully qualified and had passed PSB screening on February 12 and 13, 2004.

• CSC Resolution No. 010988 (June 4, 2001) — Superseded by Resolution No. 030918. Prohibited mass appointments issued after elections by outgoing local chief executives and required four concurrence requisites for validity. Distinguished and held inapplicable to this case.

• CSC Memorandum Circular No. 40-98, Rule V, Section 1(e)(ii) — Requires that appointments in local government units be accompanied by a certification from the Municipal/City/Provincial Accountant or Budget Officer that funds are available. Found to have been satisfied by the initial certification issued by the Provincial Budget Officer and Provincial Accountant.

• CSC Memorandum Circular No. 40-98, Rule VI, Section 3 — Provides that an appointment takes effect immediately upon issuance and that the appointee is entitled to salaries even before CSC approval; if a motion for reconsideration or appeal is seasonably filed, the appointment remains effective until finally disapproved. Applied to hold that Marco's appointment remained effective and that reinstatement was the necessary consequence of the CSC's grant of reconsideration.

• Rule VI, Section 80, Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service — Provides that CSC decisions become immediately executory after 15 days from receipt unless a motion for reconsideration is seasonably filed. Applied to determine that the April 14, 2008 Resolution became final and executory on June 6, 2008.

• Section 325(e), Local Government Code (Republic Act No. 7160) — Requires that positions in the official plantilla for career positions occupied by incumbents holding permanent appointments be covered by adequate appropriations. Cited in connection with the certification-of-funds requirement.

• Section 67, Civil Service Law (Book V, Executive Order No. 292) — Penalizes fraud, deceit, or intentional misrepresentation of material facts concerning civil service matters with fine, imprisonment, or both. Cited to support the CSC's order to investigate the Provincial Budget Officer and Provincial Accountant for issuing and then withdrawing the certification.

• Rule 41, Section 1(f), Rules of Court — Provides that no appeal may be taken from an order of execution. Applied to hold that the Province erred in appealing the CSC's execution order to the Court of Appeals.

• Rule 50, Section 1(i), Rules of Court — Allows the Court of Appeals to dismiss an appeal where the order appealed from is not appealable.

Carpio (Chairperson), Del Castillo, Perez, and Mendoza, JJ., concurred. Perez was designated acting member per Special Order No. 1977 dated April 15, 2015.